The coming civil war over abortion

Philosophically speaking (or otherwise)....prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's wrong to abort a fetus.

I'd think you of all people be making some case that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it and challenging others to prove there is something wrong with it.

So the onus is on you.

 

Yeah like those neo-nazi's at NPR.

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/6622...olitical-violence-deepens-in-a-divided-nation

 

From your own link: "Since then the concept of a new civil war has seeped out into the open, especially on the right." The article is specifically about this issue being brought up by the fringe right.

 

To do that, I would need some concessions in order to establish the required premises. For example, is it wrong to kill innocent people? If I see somebody walking down the street, and I just don't like the cut of his jib, is it wrong to pull out my .9 and shoot him until he's dead?

 

....and then goes on to talk about the NYT article.

Yeah, I saw that.

NPR did a story and blamed the right. That's called SOP.

 

Someone is very...full of themselves.

 

How did this recent abortion thing start?

Seems like a calculated political move.

When in doubt Republicans start shouting about abortion and/or guns.

Kind of ironic. "We care about "life" sooooooooooooooo much....that's why we love guns sooooooooooo much."

I don't think Repubs really care about abortion at all. They get abortions all over the place. And there are tons of born kids that are in need of care....are they going en masse to the adoption clinic to adopt kids? They don't give 2 sh*ts about all the fully born and alive kids in need.

It's taking a serious and sad issue that not a single soul is happy about and turning it into a callous giant political load of bull.

 

The NPR story is primarily about Civil War lingo stoking on the fringe right, with specific examples. Which is exactly the issue I was bringing up. Thanks for supporting my argument I guess?

 

Are we going to have Civil War chess sets to commemorate the Great Abortion War?

 

Yeah like shooting up a baseball field full of Republicans.

Thanks for blaming the NPR story that NPR wrote on Republicans starting a civil war.

Those horrible Republicans making NPR talk about how Republicans want to start a civil war.

 

Required premises? Oh come on.

The premises and onus are all on you.

 

He will never directly answer you.

 

sigh... okay.

1. A human fetus is human.
2. A human fetus is incapable of intent.
3. Killing humans with no ill intent is unjust.

Therefore, killing human fetuses is unjust.

The logic is unassailable. Your only recourse is to disagree with one of my premises.

 

That's it?

Who says it's unjust to kill a human? Who says it's okay to kill a human with intent? Is it unjust to kill a chicken? What makes humans so special?

What about old people on life support with no brain activity or with no hope? What about the death penalty? All unjust?

So abortion should be absolutely illegal and considered murder in all cases no matter the circumstance? What about all the Repubs who have had abortions? They should all be in jail for life, right?

 

Who says that it is unjust to kill a human with no ill-intent? I assume you wouldn't take kindly if that happened to you while you were walking down the street, so I assume that YOU would think it highly unjust if that were to happen to you.

If I am assuming a bit too much, then you are agreeing that it is perfectly fine for you to be killed in cold blood for no reason at all.

 

Look, this is your game.

You have to prove all this stuff beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I asked a bunch of questions, you have to answer them with arguments that prove your point.

You just want us all to assume that human life is more special than a chicken's life without absolute proof? Or killing a human without "intent" is absolutely wrong? Yet assuming that white supremacy or discrimination are bad isn't good enough for you?

You have to answer all these questions, and prove everything with perfect arguments.

Otherwise, I win and you lose.

 

You obviously don't understand how logic works. It uses a set of mutually agreed upon premises to arrive at a consistent conclusion based upon those mutually agreed upon premises.

In other words, the ball is in your court. I've made my argument, gave one example of how disagreeing with that premise plays out. Now you can either be intellectually honest, or you can play the lefty game of being the exact opposite.

 

The straw men are getting even weaker.

The NPR story was primarily about a bunch of fringe righties getting a boner over civil war fantasies. Please read it if you are going to link to it

They cited conservatives. You are trying to blame NPR . . . for accurately citing fringe right wackos. Those horrible folks at NPR making conservatives say those things

 

Oh yes, because shooting people is a strawman. That never happens in civil wars. Lincoln received a "I LUVZ U" balloon instead of a bullet.

Yeah, like I said, NPR telling us how the right is going to start a civil war. SOP from leftists telling us that the right is responsible for talking about civil wars, while reporting that they're starting civil wars.

Good stuff.

 

By that "logic," every fringe right winger who shot someone was starting a civil war.

You could save yourself a lot of trouble and embarrassment by just finally reading the article
[quote[SOP from leftists telling us that the right is responsible for talking about civil wars, while reporting that they're starting civil wars.[/quote]They didn't report that they were starting civil wars. They reported them talking about it. Which they were.

It gets better if you actually read it.

 

Says the people screaming about the NZ shooter.

I'm not embarrassed at all and I did read the article.

Left wingers talking about civil war while saying it's the right talking about civil war.

Fixed it for you.

 

Oh brother.

If life is precious and "taking" it is wrong....

than life is precious and taking it is wrong.

That's the premise.

Now you're adding some arbitrary "agreed upon" stuff.

Well I don't agree upon that stuff.

If life is precious, it's all precious...always.

Otherwise, it all becomes subjective.

A fetus, a sperm, an egg, a chicken, a convict on death row, a human on life support with no hope, a person who wants to kill themselves.

That's all life.

Is it okay to ever choose to end "life", and why is it ever okay. Prove it.

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

 

You are ignoring the part about ill-intent.

I'm guessing that this is intentional. I did make that distinction, you ignored it, and then went to town.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

 

No, you are.

You are making all these assumptions about the "premise".

It's no different than my "assumptions" in regard to those other topics you gave me crap for.

Anyway, you lose this dumb game.

So back to the topic about the next civil war.

 

sigh...

You're being intellectually dishonest. You ignored the ill-intent part, continue to ignore it, and then act like you know absolutely nothing about how these things work.

If you truly don't understand basic logic, that would be okay, but since you are intentionally being obtuse despite me pointing you forgot to include a very key aspect of a particular premise, then I can only assume you are not playing fair.

From now, I won't give you the courtesy of debate, but I will destroy you with sarcasm.